XQ-58 valkyrie F-35 combo

https://eurasiantimes.com/taiwan-war-us ... -to-swarm/


There is an interesting article over at the Eurasian times.
The article discusses pairing the F-35 with the XQ-58 to keep the USAF in the game independent of vulnerable Pacific Air fields. The Valkyrie as you know doesn't need a AF to launch and recover. I scratch my head at the notion that the USAF would go out of the way to field the
Drones when there is a platform that already is not tied to an AF, and is just as lethal as the F-35A.

My argument is that the USAF needs the F-35B in the pacific yesterday to fill 3 missions

1. Point defense: The F-35B has the potential to be the greatest point defense fighter ever made. It has all of the stealth and fire power of the F-35A but it needs minimal places to land.

2. To pair with the above mentioned drones.

3. Take take over the CAS role as the A-10 is retired.

If your argument is less reliance on airfields then F-35Bs in hardened shelters makes alot more sense.
Further more F-35As can only be tanked by USAF tankers. Having the F-35B allows for joint tanking.
Lastly the USAF already discussed a cheaper alternative as an F-16 replacement.
1.Have the drone do cheap state side intercepts
2. Buy 100 F-35Bs to fill the the CAS, and point defense roll. This will push F-35B prices down.
3. Pair the F-35B with the valkyrie to make Kadena nearly impossible to shut down.
I would do the same thing in Poland.
Tanking should not be an issue since the Pegasus also can fuel via drouge.

Discuss, am I insane or should the discussion be Valkyrie and F-35B over the A?

I don't think anyone here needs to be told to 'discuss'. One issue that pops out is: "...F-35As can only be tanked by USAF tankers...". Where does this notion come from? Japanese, South Korean, Singapore & Australian Air Forces have or will have boom tankers, with other RIMPAC air forces having it OR to follow? https://adbr.com.au/regional-tankers/

I don't think anyone here needs to be told to 'discuss'. One issue that pops out is: "...F-35As can only be tanked by USAF tankers...". Where does this notion come from? Japanese, South Korean, Singapore & Australian Air Forces have or will have boom tankers, with other RIMPAC air forces having it OR to follow? https://adbr.com.au/regional-tankers/

I'm sorry spaz I wasn't thinking allies, I meant that the A, can be supported by USAF tankers, But the USN and Marines use drouge.

Also I know some may be triggered when I say discuss, But I'm not barking an order (no shark hands here)
I'm simply setting up the discussion.

I would actually like your opinion on the topic here, since we seem to have misunderstood each other.
I love you spazz for the old aussie pit bull you are.
Please don't ever change

And another thing: 'hose and drogue' it is. You hear a voice in your head when you read my text. That is not me.

[quote="spazsinbad"]And another thing: 'hose and drogue' it is. You hear a voice in your head when you read my text. That is not me.[/quote

Mercy please sir, have mercy on the ignorant.
My 1st college class was elementry education.
I single handedly saved the American school system, by switching Majors. Im smart enough at my age to know what I don't know. So please sir, be merciful to the admittedly ignorant.


Now back to the topic.

I don't think anyone here needs to be told to 'discuss'. One issue that pops out is: "...F-35As can only be tanked by USAF tankers...". Where does this notion come from? Japanese, South Korean, Singapore & Australian Air Forces have or will have boom tankers, with other RIMPAC air forces having it OR to follow? https://adbr.com.au/regional-tankers/

I'm sorry spaz I wasn't thinking allies, I meant that the A, can be supported by USAF tankers, But the USN and Marines use drouge.

Also I know some may be triggered when I say discuss, But I'm not barking an order (no shark hands here)
I'm simply setting up the discussion.

I would actually like your opinion on the topic here, since we seem to have misunderstood each other.
I love you spazz for the old aussie pit bull you are.
Please don't ever change

All 3 models can use both types of refueling, should the user desire. They're all plumbed for probe or drogue.

Can the B variant be plumbed for BOOM refueling? News to me. Any references? References for C plumbing for BOOM?

Yes the A model has space for the probe & drogue refueling gizmos but no one has ordered or tried this mod so far.

I don't think anyone here needs to be told to 'discuss'. One issue that pops out is: "...F-35As can only be tanked by USAF tankers...". Where does this notion come from? Japanese, South Korean, Singapore & Australian Air Forces have or will have boom tankers, with other RIMPAC air forces having it OR to follow? https://adbr.com.au/regional-tankers/

I'm sorry spaz I wasn't thinking allies, I meant that the A, can be supported by USAF tankers, But the USN and Marines use drouge.

Also I know some may be triggered when I say discuss, But I'm not barking an order (no shark hands here)
I'm simply setting up the discussion.

I would actually like your opinion on the topic here, since we seem to have misunderstood each other.
I love you spazz for the old aussie pit bull you are.
Please don't ever change

All 3 models can use both types of refueling, should the user desire. They're all plumbed for probe or drogue.

Ok I've never seen or even heard of a F-35B using probe.
If not sure if it's even possible since there is a fan and clutch ect in that area.

‘Probe and drogue’ is the common reference for the aar system used by the B and C models.

The A model features an in-flight refueling receptacle compatible with ‘flying boom’ systems.

The space occupied by Aux Air Inlet doors on the B would be a problem for alternative designs featuring a flying boom receptacle.

All 3 models can use both types of refueling, should the user desire. They're all plumbed for probe or drogue.

Ok I've never seen or even heard of a F-35B using probe.
If not sure if it's even possible since there is a fan and clutch ect in that area.

You haven't because no operator has opted for that option, but all 3 models have the plumbing to be able to use either refueling method should they pay for the associated hardware. That's why it's a non-issue.

'wrightwing' said above: "...all 3 models have the plumbing to be able to use either refueling method should they pay for the associated hardware...." Do you have reference(s) for this claim please [also asked earlier]. TIA.

Website 'DODbuzz' has KAPUT gone so attached is a 2 page PDF from it with text excerpt below: 61 page PDF below

First here: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=21739&p=240095&hilit=Ewing+O%27Bryan+%2ABryan#p240095

'ENGINES' at pprune is a very knowledgeable RN FAA flight engineer who worked on the F-35 project in the early years:

Probe refuelling changes on F-35A
28 Jun 2017 ‘Engines’ [real name can be found when searching for 'Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs']

“...You're absolutely right that any change now to the A is going to cost. How much depends on a number of things that none of us are fully sighted on:
1. Your point about structure - removal of the boom receptacle would change a number of structural parts on the upper surface - but the new configuration would be very close to the B model, so it's not all new stuff. Possibly.
2. Software - main change would be to the fuel system management software, moving fuel around the tanks and handling the refuelling flows. Again, moving closer to the B model system.
3. Fuel system hardware would also need changing to add the probe lines and remove the many changes that were required to the system to accept boom refuel rates. Once again, moving closer to the B layout.
4. The least hard part of the job should be installation of the probe itself. The aerodynamic shape of the fuselage forward of the probe is the same for all three variants, as is the location of the cockpit canopy arch. If the space is truly vacant on the A, probe installation should not be a major challenge.

Source: http://www.pprune.org/9814888-post10598.html

Lockheed's comprehensive Q&A on the F-35
19 Jun 2012 PHILIP EWING

"...O'Bryan [LM whatname]: "We anticipated a number of operators would want probe-and-drogue refueling in the F-35A and we kept that space empty on the F-35A to accommodate probe and drogue refueling. We've done a number of studies - funded studies, not projects - funded studies that, paid for by the countries who want that to happen. It's a relatively easy ... doable change."

[Ewing] So if you’re keeping score at home, you could almost count this as a fourth variant of the F-35 – because this program wasn’t complicated enough...."

[Elsewhere in dim past (see PDF): "Refueling Probe Installation on CTOL Variant
- CTOL Fuselage Volume Reserved for Probe
- Utilize Same Probe Integration as CV Design
- Duel[sic] (means DUAL) Refueling Capability"

Source: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/06/19/lockh ... -the-f-35/

…all of which illustrate, what, exactly?

... forward thinking by the manufacturer and flexibility inherent in their design?

Yet, we still haven't seen a probe-and-drogue equipped F-35A.......